“The Consent Decree required defendants to implement the remedy for hazardous substance contamination at the Environmental Conservation and Chemical Corporation Superfund Site (hereinafter, the ‘ECC Site’ or the ‘Site’) near Zionsville, Indiana, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (‘CERCLA’), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.”

💡 Confirms the site required federal Superfund intervention due to hazardous substance contamination serious enough to invoke CERCLA.

“WHEREAS, in March 2003, EPA determined, after consultation with the State, that the remedial action had not achieved the requisite cleanup standards”

💡 EPA officially determined the remedy failed twelve years after the original consent decree was entered.

“WHEREAS, after installation of the PRGS in 2008, the Parties determined around 2011 that the PRGS system was not adequate and that the operation of the PRGS and the dual phase SVE system was being adversely affected by, among others, the larger volumes of water than expected in the trench system after precipitation events”

💡 Another major remedial component failed within three years of installation, requiring suspension of operations.

“WHEREAS, in 2016, after completion of the investigation of the sources of the excess water in the trench system particularly after precipitation events, the Parties agreed to additional measures to reduce flows to the trench system and to address contamination that had recently been detected migrating from the Site to an area south of the Site”

💡 Contamination spread beyond original site boundaries, demonstrating containment measures failed.

“WHEREAS, sometime after the ESD was issued in 2006, negotiations to amend the Consent Decree stalled, the Parties never reached full agreement on Attachment Z-1 nor a Consent Decree amendment, and those documents were never finalized to lodge with this Court”

💡 Despite EPA issuing a decision document in 2006, formal legal amendments were not completed until 2024, an 18-year delay.

“WHEREAS, in order to expedite the environmental benefits provided by the Additional Work as set forth in the final ESD, the Parties proceeded in good faith to implement those measures consistent with the purpose of the Consent Decree to assure protection of human health and the environment, so that the elements described in EPA’s September 15, 2006 ESD were constructed and operated as Additional Work consistent with Section VII of the Consent Decree”

💡 Cleanup work proceeded outside formal court-approved consent decree modifications for nearly two decades.

“Settling Defendants shall not be liable for paying government oversight costs in excess of $850,000 incurred in overseeing the Work and paid by the United States prior to Dec. 2, 2003 and paid by the State prior to Jan. 1, 2009.”

💡 Defendants negotiated a cap limiting their financial responsibility for government oversight regardless of actual costs incurred.

“The Settling Defendants have paid to the State $37,842.41 in full settlement of the claims of the State for its oversight costs paid or incurred at the Site prior to January 1, 2009. The State, having received the $37,842.41, waives, releases, and discharges the Settling Defendants from any and all claims from the beginning of time for all oversight costs the State paid or incurred prior to January 1, 2009 at or in relation to the ECC Site.”

💡 Indiana settled for under $38,000 and waived all other claims for oversight costs over a 26-year period from case filing through 2009.

“For each day that any major milestone in Exhibit A or any of the Work and Additional Work identified in Paragraphs a through c below is delayed: Settling Defendants shall pay $1,500 for the first 7 days; $4,000 for the 8th through 30th days; $6,500 for the 31st through the 60th day; and $9,000 a day after the 60th day.”

💡 Penalties start low and take over two months to reach maximum of $9,000 per day, amounts that may not deter delay.

“Within 90 days of the filing of the 2024 Stipulation and Order Amending Consent Decree and Modifying Exhibit A with the Court, Settling Defendants submit for approval by EPA (in consultation with the State) as Additional Work under Section VII of the Consent Decree a draft Revised Remedial Alternatives Analysis Report evaluating alternative remedies to assure remediation of contamination at and from the Site long-term”

💡 As of 2024, defendants still have 90 days just to submit an analysis, meaning selection of a comprehensive long-term remedy remains months or years away.

“WHEREAS, following any issuance by EPA of a decision document selecting the amended remedy for the Site and EPA’s review and approval (in consultation with the State) of a Revised Remedial Action Plan to implement the amended remedy, the Parties intend that the approved Revised Remedial Action Plan will supersede the Combined Revised Exhibit A and the 2024 Exhibit A Update below creating the most recent, up-to-date, and comprehensive version of the remedy for the Site”

💡 The 2024 amendment is not the final remedy but another interim step, with a comprehensive plan still to be developed and approved.

“WHEREAS, the remedial action selected by the ROD consisted of, inter alia, installing and operating a soil vapor extraction (‘SVE’) system to treat contamination in the soil and groundwater and a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act– compliant cover over certain areas where hazardous substances were present (‘RCRA Compliant Cap’)”

💡 The original remedy required both vapor extraction and a specialized hazardous waste cap, indicating serious contamination levels.

“for component (c) referenced above, in 2022 and 2023 EPA (in consultation with the State) provided authorization for the Settling Defendants to proceed with the Additional Work outlined in the ‘Revised Extraction Well Installation Work Plan and Response to Comments of November 1, 2022’ which EPA modified and approved in June 2023 as to technical aspects and issued authorization to proceed pending entry of this Stipulation and Order (hereafter ‘Revised Extraction Wells Plan’)”

💡 Additional extraction wells had to be installed to control and treat groundwater that migrated south of the original site boundaries.

“This 2024 Stipulation and Order Amending Consent Decree and Modifying Exhibit A shall be lodged with the Court for a period of not less than 30 Days for public notice and comment. The United States reserves the right to withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding this amendment and modification disclose facts or considerations indicating that the amendment and modification is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.”

💡 The government can still withdraw the agreement based on public comments, indicating this is not yet final as of filing.

“the Settling Defendants submitted the ‘Basis of Design for Groundwater Treatment System Improvements Rev 1’ on August 4, 2023, which EPA approved on September 6, 2023, as to technical aspects with authorization to proceed pending entry of this Stipulation and Order (hereinafter ‘Replacement Treatment Plant Design’)”

💡 EPA approved technical plans but withheld full authorization for over a year pending court entry of this stipulation, further delaying implementation.